- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
by Philip Dorr 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Tim Franklin <tim(a)pelican.org> wrote: >> Thankfully, the current test has been a success. > > Including stopping non-members from posting to the list, and other anti-spam? > > I've got a sudden influx this morning of spam addressed to nanog(a)nanog.org :( > > Regards, > Tim. > Same here. Previously I have maybe received maybe one or two spam messages total via NANOG, but this morning I have received seven.

1 0

Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward?
by XPhi 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

Hi Also seeing a gross amount of spam from list and my "digest" setting has been lost apparently. Sigh C

1 0

Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
by Mikael Abrahamsson 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: > >> If you have any questions or concerns please let me know. > > The new posts do not have list (un)subscribe information in the headers. This took a very long time to get delivered (2h20 minutes). Also, the new mail server doesn't seem to support TLS and during this short time it's been active, we've had multiple SPAM get distributed through the list as well. What was the reason for the change, from what it looks like right now there seems to be quite a few downsides and functionality/performance lost. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se

1 0

Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
by Mattias Ahnberg 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

On 2011-07-12 07:19, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: > If you have any questions or concerns please let me know. I miss proper List-Id headers for identifying and filtering the list easily. I might have missed some discussion; but why are we moving away from mailman, and what software is in the new system? -- /ahnberg.

1 0

dammit, please make nanog poster only .. dont let nonmembers post to it
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

That's the second spam received on nanog so far. First a chinese voip vendor who probably wont gain any customers, the second a nigerian westernunion scam -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com)

1 0

IMPORTANT: NANOG List Cutover Test
by Michael K. Smith - Adhost 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

Hello: I'll be testing the list cutover again at 10:00 PM PDT (GMT -7). Please ignore the subsequent "NANOG TEST" email that comes through to the list. Regards, Mike

1 0

Facebook contact?
by Walter Keen 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

If anyone from Facebook is here, Please contact me. Thanks -- Walter Keen Network Engineer Rainier Connect (P) 360-832-4024 (C) 253-302-0194

3 2

Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)
by Lucy Lynch 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja(a)bogus.com> wrote: >> >> On Jul 11, 2011, at 12:18 PM, William Herrin wrote: <snip> > > My focus in this thread is this: how do we help the next teams avoid > the discourtesy and the smackdown that the v6 teams are getting for > not adequately recognizing the ops' issues. These guys should have > been heroes but instead they screwed the pooch and everybody's paying > for it. How do we fix the systemic problems so that next time they are > heroes? get to the party early: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/ and stay late... lots of new work inbound. - Lucy > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > >

2 1

RE: Hello List, a easy Cisco question.
by bill＠kruchas.com 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

Hello, We have Nat setup on our equipment, just a plain vanilla internet connection. Here is the pertinent section of the runing config. ! interface Ethernet0/2 nameif Etherpoint security-level 0 ip address outside-ip 255.255.255.252 ospf cost 10 ! object-group service terminal-services tcp port-object eq 3389 access-list Inside_access_in extended permit icmp any any access-list Inside_access_in extended permit ip 192.168.125.0 255.255.255.0 any access-list Inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip 192.168.125.0 255.255.255.0 MobileVPN 255.255.255.0 access-list Inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 MobileVPN 255.255.255.0 inactive access-list Inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip 192.168.125.0 255.255.255.0 any inactive access-list Inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip 192.168.125.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 access-list Inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip 192.168.125.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.14.0 255.255.255.0 access-list Inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip 192.168.125.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.100.0 255.255.255.0 access-list Inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip 192.168.125.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.101.0 255.255.255.0 access-list Inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip 192.168.125.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.253.0 255.255.255.0 access-list Haven_splitTunnelAcl_1 standard permit 192.168.125.0 255.255.255.0 access-list Etherpoint_access_in extended permit tcp host 192.168.125.8 eq 3389 any eq 3389 access-list Etherpoint_access_in extended permit tcp any eq 3389 host 192.168.125.8 eq 3389 access-list Etherpoint_access_in extended permit tcp any host 192.168.125.8 eq 3389 access-list Etherpoint_nat0_outbound extended permit ip host 192.168.125.8 host outside-ip access-list Etherpoint_nat0_outbound extended permit ip host outside-ip host 192.168.125.8 ip local pool HavenVPN 192.168.253.1-192.168.253.254 mask 255.255.255.0 global (Etherpoint) 2 interface nat (Inside) 0 access-list Inside_nat0_outbound nat (Inside) 2 192.168.125.0 255.255.255.0 nat (Etherpoint) 0 access-list Etherpoint_nat0_outbound outside static (Inside,Etherpoint) tcp interface 3389 192.168.125.8 3389 netmask 255.255.255.255 no threat-detection statistics tcp-intercept access-group Inside_access_in in interface Inside access-group Etherpoint_access_in in interface Etherpoint route Etherpoint 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 204.186.102.187 1 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Hello List, a easy Cisco question. From: Dennis <[1]daodennis(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, July 11, 2011 12:39 pm To: [2]bill(a)kruchas.com On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:33 PM, <[3]bill(a)kruchas.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I am not a heads down network guy, but I have setup a few > firewalls, and have got them to do what I wanted, "eventually". But > mostly through reading and trial and error. > > I am struggling with this one, but I think I know the answer, but > want to verify it with some experts. > > > > We have a cisco asa 5505, with an internet connection with only one > useable ip address (subnet 255.255.255.252). We/they have had a nat > setup for outgoing connections for some time, but I have been trying to So your provider has your ASA behind a NAT or there is a NAT inside,outside statement on your ASA? Some more pieces of the configuration would be helpful here too. Thanks, Dennis O. References 1. mailto:daodennis@gmail.com 2. mailto:bill@kruchas.com 3. mailto:bill@kruchas.com

2 1

RE: Hello List, a easy Cisco question.
by bill＠kruchas.com 11 Jul '11

11 Jul '11

Thank You all, Here are some of the suggestions so far, all good. And I will followup on them and report back the final solution. Some reading for tonite ( I already had it and skimmed thru, but I'll need to digest it better). I'm hoping that I'm not beating my head against the wall using Nat instead of Pat, and not sure if Pat would be acceptable. Anyway, thanks again. Bill ****************************************************** Hey Bill, I don't think you can do a static NAT translation on a NAT egress IP address. Have you considered using Port Address Translation instead? Cheers, Taylor As per [1]http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/listfaqs/otherlists.php, since I don't see any responses to the list here, you'll probably get a more comprehensive reply from real Cisco experts at [2]http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp I hope you get the problem solved! Whatever happens, do post back a reply to the list saying what solved the problem in the end. Alex -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Hello List, a easy Cisco question. From: "Eric Tykwinski" <[3]eric-list(a)truenet.com> Date: Mon, July 11, 2011 12:47 pm To: <[4]bill(a)kruchas.com> Bill, Sounds like you need to use Port Address Translation (PAT), instead of Network Address Translation (NAT). Here's a Cisco help file for it: [5]http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_tech_ note09186a00804708b4.shtml Sincerely, Eric Tykwinski TrueNet, Inc. P: 610-429-8300 F: 610-429-3222 -----Original Message----- From: [6]bill(a)kruchas.com [[7]mailto:bill@kruchas.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:34 PM To: nanog Subject: Hello List, a easy Cisco question. Hello, I am not a heads down network guy, but I have setup a few firewalls, and have got them to do what I wanted, "eventually". But mostly through reading and trial and error. I am struggling with this one, but I think I know the answer, but want to verify it with some experts. We have a cisco asa 5505, with an internet connection with only one useable ip address (subnet 255.255.255.252). We/they have had a nat setup for outgoing connections for some time, but I have been trying to get a new inbound connection going for terminal services to a specific host on tcp port 3389. I'm using "ASDM" but checking the config file and it's building the correct static statement, and access lists (I think anyway). But It doesn't work, and doesn't give a real good definative log message. I was wondering if possibly the fact that nat is using the one ip address, if that precludes the static mapping from working. I've read several step by steps, and again had this working several other places, but always with more ip's. If having just one ip isn't the isssue, is there any other issues I should be looking for. I'd appreciate any insight you might share. Thanks in advance References 1. http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/listfaqs/otherlists.php 2. http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp 3. mailto:eric-list@truenet.com 4. mailto:bill@kruchas.com 5. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_tech_note091… 6. mailto:bill@kruchas.com 7. mailto:bill@kruchas.com

1 0